Tiger wrote: The whole point is simple.. With hockey players salaries escalating over the last 10 years and other costs escalating the owners have to charge an arm and a leg to the fans.. The latest showdown .. Lockout/Strike is either going to control costs and maybe make hockey viable in the fringe markets and markets like New Jersey which has been hit hard by the world wide recession.. I can no longer afford to go to as many games as I used to go to.. Higher ticket prices have made going to watch a game a luxury for the well to do.. I would love to see costs ( yep players salaries are the main ones ) go down just for the very selfish reason I love to watch hockey live..

Ticket prices are calibrated to what the local market will allow. Move to Florida, you can go to all the games you want. The Rangers salary structure went way down with the salary cap in 05, and did that mean the ticket prices went down? That sound you hear is my friends who are Rangers' fans laughing their asses off at the very idea. The players getting paid less won't make a penny's difference in deductions in ticket prices. Fact is, in Cdn cities and cities where hockey is a draw people will pay a fortune for the tickets, even if the players were getting paid the minimum wage, and a fortune is what the owners will charge if they can get away with it...Bettman's lockout is about easing the owners' expenses not the customer, not now, not ever...

Blob Mckenzie wrote:I am looking at $500- $600 after parking, gas, couple burgers, snacks, beers, hotdog etc. That is ridonkulous to say the least. For that money i could drive to my cabin for a long weekend and my gas would be paid for both ways, all my food and booze, gas for the quads and the boat and probably buy a bag of weed too. Something is wrong with this picture.

And that is exactly the choice that most non-diehards are making. Camping, etc over hockey.

Even with cheap tickets prices in the US, the cost of a game with decent seats will still be in the $250+ range and that's a lot for a family that isn't really into hockey.

Nothing is wrong with the picture if you subscribe to contemporary capitalism, celebrity culture and basic supply and demand.

The Canucks charge whatever the market will bear, and there are 17,000+ people in the city who can afford season tickets and who also buy season tickets.

It is a shame that you and your family cannot go to the games, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the picture if you believe profit in and of itself should be the ultimate goal in our society, and that is a view the vast majority of people hold.

If you own a primary and secondary residence it seems like you've already made your choice with respect to how you disburse your disposable income...I'd rather go to the cabin 99 times out of a 100 than a regular season Canucks game. To me, it sounds like you've made the correct choice.

ukcanuck wrote:
It bothers me that money has it own justification and hard work has none.

As much as I hate to level either or distinctions, this is either intellectually dishonest, or you're blinded by your hypocrisy.

Your fallacious statement completely ignores a number of important factors, but mostly two things.

1. You're suggesting hard work and money are mutually exclusive, which is pure bullshit.

2. You're ignoring the natural talents and good fortune that generally comes with making significant money. Most billionaire owners were in the position to accumulate their wealth based on at least one of these factors, and often in combination: were born into fairly wealthy families, had good fortune with a business move or promotion, or posses extraordinary intelligence. Most NHL players were born with great athletic ability and natural talent for hockey, and many were born into good families that spent a ton of money, energy and time into helping their son to become the best player possible.

Obviously, there are those on both sides that accumulated their wealth, or made the NHL, mostly on their own with hard work and determination, without extraordinary intelligence or athletic ability, but that's generally a small minority.

So, as you should be able to plainly see, billionaire owners and star athletes share similar good fortune in order to get to where they are. There aren't THAT many billionaires around the world, the same way there aren't THAT many millionaire athletes across the world.

This is precisely why I and others laugh at your blindly partisan posts.

Mondi wrote:Nothing is wrong with the picture if you subscribe to contemporary capitalism, celebrity culture and basic supply and demand.

The Canucks charge whatever the market will bear, and there are 17,000+ people in the city who can afford season tickets and who also buy season tickets.

It is a shame that you and your family cannot go to the games, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the picture if you believe profit in and of itself should be the ultimate goal in our society, and that is a view the vast majority of people hold.

If you own a primary and secondary residence it seems like you've already made your choice with respect to how you disburse your disposable income...I'd rather go to the cabin 99 times out of a 100 than a regular season Canucks game. To me, it sounds like you've made the correct choice.

Point taken.... maybe just sour grapes on my part, maybe just the fact I can't justify the expenditure that may or may not turn out to be a good game. It is a fun time to go to a game usually but it has clearly passed by the majority of the population in this day and age.

Who knows if Seattle gets a team maybe I can make a few roadies down there

coco_canuck wrote:UK, you really have to learn to stop while you're behind.

ukcanuck wrote:
It bothers me that money has it own justification and hard work has none.

As much as I hate to level either or distinctions, this is either intellectually dishonest, or you're blinded by your hypocrisy.

Your fallacious statement completely ignores a number of important factors, but mostly two things.

1. You're suggesting hard work and money are mutually exclusive, which is pure bullshit.

2. You're ignoring the natural talents and good fortune that generally comes with making significant money. Most billionaire owners were in the position to accumulate their wealth based on at least one of these factors, and often in combination: were born into fairly wealthy families, had good fortune with a business move or promotion, or posses extraordinary intelligence. Most NHL players were born with great athletic ability and natural talent for hockey, and many were born into good families that spent a ton of money, energy and time into helping their son to become the best player possible.

Obviously, there are those on both sides that accumulated their wealth, or made the NHL, mostly on their own with hard work and determination, without extraordinary intelligence or athletic ability, but that's generally a small minority.

So, as you should be able to plainly see, billionaire owners and star athletes share similar good fortune in order to get to where they are. There aren't THAT many billionaires around the world, the same way there aren't THAT many millionaire athletes across the world.

This is precisely why I and others laugh at your blindly partisan posts.

coco_canuck wrote:UK, you really have to learn to stop while you're behind.

ukcanuck wrote:
It bothers me that money has it own justification and hard work has none.

As much as I hate to level either or distinctions, this is either intellectually dishonest, or you're blinded by your hypocrisy.

you may hate to level the accusations but you aren't above using intellectual dishonesty yourself it seems.

This is precisely why I and others laugh at your blindly partisan posts.

The self appointed spokesperson of the majority view as if it makes your position stronger and mine weaker, that’s very good, I admit, but its a fallacy, and it a cheap trick, we don't know what anyone else is thinking let alone whether there are more or less people who agree with either you or me, its completely irrelevant and raises the question whether you are the kettle or the pot?

Your fallacious statement completely ignores a number of important factors, but mostly two things.

First of all it isn’t my statement but a response to a question posed earlier in the debate about why should Billionaires profits be more acceptable than millionaires salaries. And I don’t agree with the sentiment which is why I said it depresses me.

1. You're suggesting hard work and money are mutually exclusive, which is pure bullshit.

That's a simplistic interpretation of what you believe I am suggesting, obviously I'm not objecting to the players getting paid well for their efforts so how could I put forward that the two concepts are mutually exclusive?

What I am suggesting is that some people seem to resent the players their share of the pie, focusing on the appearance that its a game that they play while completely ignoring the owner in the background making much more playing their own monopoly game.

A game that affects us all, is immoral on may levels and yet seems to need no justification, because as it was put forward by another poster here earlier...capital is its own justification.

2. You're ignoring the natural talents and good fortune that generally comes with making significant money. Most billionaire owners were in the position to accumulate their wealth based on at least one of these factors, and often in combination: were born into fairly wealthy families, had good fortune with a business move or promotion, or posses extraordinary intelligence. Most NHL players were born with great athletic ability and natural talent for hockey, and many were born into good families that spent a ton of money, energy and time into helping their son to become the best player possible.

Obviously, there are those on both sides that accumulated their wealth, or made the NHL, mostly on their own with hard work and determination, without extraordinary intelligence or athletic ability, but that's generally a small minority.

So, as you should be able to plainly see, billionaire owners and star athletes share similar good fortune in order to get to where they are. There aren't THAT many billionaires around the world, the same way there aren't THAT many millionaire athletes across the world.

Yes, yes, both actors on this stage were lucky and have characteristics that enable them to be relatively successful in their lives and that’s why they find themselves doing what they are doing. However, the opportunity and path to pro sports is open to anyone regardless of class or stature, while the path to the boardroom and key to the executive washroom is far from open.

Some playing field are slanted and as crooked as a bent stick and have nothing to do with luck or intelligence...Ask George Bush Jr former owner of the Texas Rangers how he got there and he's probably stupid enough to tell you daddy had something to do with it.

"But thats just one example!" I can hear the peanut gallery cry, well yes that’s true…

But then there is the William Wadsworth Wirtz clan who are liquor distributors who got their start in Chicago real estate in the 1920s nudge nudge wink wink.

Or Jeremy Jacobs in Boston who can't walk the streets of Boston without security and whose family also built their empire in the early part of the last century.

Or the Molson family whose business interests date back to the 1790s ...(I wonder if the Wirtz and Molsons knew each other during prohibition?)

Even Mike illitch who I admit seems to have worked his way for every penny of his fortune and most closely resembles the picture you paint of the hardworking fortunate intelligent entrepreneur, is hardly the poster boy of the rags to riches story...
Anyway I am getting carried away, the comment to which you and the others (dogsalmon apparently) are laughing at me over, was a lament over the apparent blindness by some that the owners got there in part by a dishonest and biased system that maybe once was free, but now is dominated by corporate monopolies and crony capitalism. Maybe you think that’s too black and white, but I know I am not the only one who thinks the system sucks.

ukcanuck wrote:
you may hate to level the accusations but you aren't above using intellectual dishonesty yourself it seems.

Bullshit, and follow along to see why.

ukcanuck wrote:
The self appointed spokesperson of the majority view as if it makes your position stronger and mine weaker, that’s very good, I admit, but its a fallacy, and it a cheap trick, we don't know what anyone else is thinking let alone whether there are more or less people who agree with either you or me, its completely irrelevant and raises the question whether you are the kettle or the pot?

Wow, you’re really as dumb as you seem since you’re reading comprehension is piss poor.

This is precisely why I and others laugh at your blindly partisan posts.

I never took the position of the majority, I said “others,” not, most on this board. But, a nice desperate try nonetheless.

ukcanuck wrote:
That's a simplistic interpretation of what you believe I am suggesting, obviously I'm not objecting to the players getting paid well for their efforts so how could I put forward that the two concepts are mutually exclusive?

Well, that’s not what your clearly poorly formed sentence suggests, but for argument’s sake lets grant this and move on.

ukcanuck wrote:
However, the opportunity and path to pro sports is open to anyone regardless of class or stature, while the path to the boardroom and key to the executive washroom is far from open.

How can you say this crap with a straight face?

You don’t become a star, millionaire athlete without some exclusive talents that not everyone posses, and thus, the road to pro-sports is far from open to anyone and everyone.

The point you keep missing here is that natural, or received endowments are almost necessary conditions in order to become a billionaire of star athlete.

If you want to stratify the endowments to create a dishonest paradox between billionaires and star athletes, you go right ahead, but the startling fact is that both belong to exclusive groups that are NOT open to anyone and everyone.

ukcanuck wrote:
Anyway I am getting carried away, the comment to which you and the others (dogsalmon apparently) are laughing at me over, was a lament over the apparent blindness by some that the owners got there in part by a dishonest and biased system that maybe once was free, but now is dominated by corporate monopolies and crony capitalism. Maybe you think that’s too black and white, but I know I am not the only one who thinks the system sucks.

You most certainly are getting carried away, and it’s funny to see you rant and lecture people about your sociopolitical views, that may hold some merit in the discussion, but you’ve strained the argument so much that you and this narrative mess are nothing but caricatures.

ukcanuck wrote:
However, the opportunity and path to pro sports is open to anyone regardless of class or stature, while the path to the boardroom and key to the executive washroom is far from open.

I hope you understand how ignorant you sound here.

The reality is that unless you have massive financial and parental support, and hit the genetic jackpot in terms of talent, your chances of becoming a professional hockey player are slim and none.

Have a look at this years first round, how many of those kids have a father or brother in the league?

Do you think that's just random?

The truth is it's parents and families that produce great hockey players. They pass on their genes, then put them on skates when they are 3, then buy them new gear, then get them to the rink at 5 every day, then get them the best coaching, then invest thousands to make sure that by 13 years old they are on the radar for the Bantom draft.

The vast, vast majority of players drafted into the NHL have already cast their die by that age. Those who make it later are a total anomaly.

Yet of course you want to give all the credit to the players for busting their hump to make the league.

Potatoe1 wrote:
Have a look at this years first round, how many of those kids have a father or brother in the league?

Do you think that's just random?

The truth is it's parents and families that produce great hockey players. They pass on their genes, then put them on skates when they are 3, then buy them new gear, then get them to the rink at 5 every day, then get them the best coaching, then invest thousands to make sure that by 13 years old they are on the radar for the Bantom draft.

The vast, vast majority of players drafted into the NHL have already cast their die by that age. Those who make it later are a total anomaly.

On one hand he rails against the mythical dream that anyone can just become wealthy, but then contradictorily perpetuates the mythical dream that anyone can become a pro-athlete.